Against white nationalism

In a counterfactual America with a 100%-white population, there would still be the question of the different types of white people. This may not seem like a big issue, but it was in Yugoslavia.

In America, some white people (‘SWPLs’) live in Brooklyn, dye their hair pink, and blog about communism; and others (‘crackers’) live in the South, go to church, and blog about conservatism.

Are communism and conservatism about ideas? Of course not. Conservatism is a convenient pretext for disapproving of SWPL overreach, and communism is a convenient pretext for calling for the destruction of crackers. (If you’re wondering what that could look like: in Rwanda and South Africa, the state turned a blind eye to mass ethnic violence; in Tibet, the state encouraged mass migration to neutralize the original population; and in the United States, the state separated children from their families and forced assimilation.) The cracker says, “Get off my lawn!”, and the communist replies, “There are two Americas and one is better than the other. It’s time for a Third Reconstruction. It’s 2016.”

This, like the Second War of Secession (sometimes known as the “American Civil War”), would happen even in a white-nationalist US. There would have been differing economic interests between the 1800s North and South even if there hadn’t been a single slave in it (and if the more colorful sources from the period are to be believed, even the differing economic interests were a pretext), and there would be cultural differences today. Of course, Britain considered supporting the Confederacy as a check against the Union, and Russia has for almost a hundred years been inflaming the inevitable cultural conflict to check American interests. (Yes, it’s still doing it; yes, America did, and does, the same thing in Russia. But we are Americans, not Brits or Russians, so we must support American interests.)

There are perhaps other reasons to oppose white nationalism, but why worry about the weaker argument given the existence of the stronger? It simply wouldn’t accomplish its proponents’ goals. In a hypothetical white nationalist America, one side (read: [pseudo-]ethnicity) or the other would eventually realize both the possibility and the utility of ending white nationalism in order to advance its own interests against those of its traditional enemies. In other words: ‘white’ is not a nation. And no one will ever convert Massachusetts to Odinism.

(This point from the comments ought to be tattooed on every culture-warrior’s face: “We know what happened to the Native Americans when they failed to unite in collective action against a collective threat of mass migration: they were nearly exterminated.” Or, in eight words, “don’t call up what you can’t put down”. Anyone the Brahmins trust to crush the crackers isn’t going to like the Brahmins much either.)

How long do you think this hypothetical setup would last? How do you propose to prevent one faction from allowing mass nonwhite immigration to their own benefit as soon as they have the power to pull it off?

The more sensible version of this is that each group works in self-interest toward Nationalism. It requires no unity, so sets up no single point of failure. It is decentralized and does not require us to agree on anything but Nationalism, and therefore cannot be gamed like the EU is, where low-value members demand subsidy from higher-value members. Even more, the first state to choose Nationalism will fragment the illusion of the ideological “proposition nation” nation-state, and others will naturally choose Nationalism in order to compete. We do not need to unite to work toward the same goals.

The issue is that you’re using some romantic criteria — people who like like you — for a supposedly optimal construction of society.
First and foremost, that kind of constructivism is generally stupid. Good luck getting there, because you can’t build much out of ashes. Second of all, even if we are to organize society in a fragilista-rational way, there’s way more/better ways to optimize it then the criteria WNs have

I don’t buy it. Both Israel and Japan are democracies, have differing political subcultures, and have a political left that would reap massive electoral benefits from immigration. Neither have replacement level immigration.

Fundamentally you are assuming that conflict between subcultures must be a total war, with no strategies off limits. This isn’t the case or there would be civil war all the time. Subcultures must agree to some sort of rules of war so that they can coexist relatively peacefully. One of these rules could be no massive demographic displacements. In a white nationalist America, there would still be politics and factional disagreements, but mass immigration supporters would be ostracized from mainstream discourse just as white nationalists are today.

You are correct though that if white nationalism in America is to succeed, Massachusetts will need to be destroyed, converted, or replaced.

We had that. And then we didn’t. If you get Montaska and Kansakota to secede as a white nation-state and take in all the whites who want to live in it, that’s one thing. If you have all the ethnics in America abducted by aliens, then you’ve still got the people who made us not have it the first time to deal with.

Now, the way I read that Putnam paper is that ethnic diversity mostly matters as a proxy for thedish diversity. Ethnic groups and thedes are very closely correlated, but maybe less so over time. I’ve been in environments with ethnic diversity and thedish homogeneity, and I’ve been in environments with thedish diversity and ethnic homogeneity. Which one is worse? Well, the internet is mostly white Brahmins; how has it turned out?

I’m not sure how exactly one would turn America into a WN state; if we don’t want to be Posadists and pray for alien intervention, the only solutions are to somehow pull off a mass expulsion larger than that of the Germans post-WW2 or to have a chunk of it secede, in which case we’ve already implemented the Yugoslavian option. But how would that play out geopolitically? Remember why Britain thought about supporting the Confederacy…

The options are Yugoslavia, France, Switzerland, or Brazil. No one wants to be Brazil. It’d be one thing if we could be Japan, but we can’t — and in any event, Japan can’t weaponize brain drain. (Russia wants to fuck with us? OK, let’s see how well they do that once all their smart people have left it.)

We had that. And then we didn’t. If you get Montaska and Kansakota to secede as a white nation-state and take in all the whites who want to live in it, that’s one thing. If you have all the ethnics in America abducted by aliens, then you’ve still got the people who made us not have it the first time to deal with.

Sure, the same people would be there, but their ideology would be different. If America somehow went full Nazi tomorrow and Nazism was high status, you would still have the Brahmins virtue-signalling and holiness-spiralling, but what would count as holiness and virtue would be Nazi!holiness and Nazi!virtue. They might still hate rednecks, but castigate them for not understanding the nuances of race theory, or for polluting their pure Aryan genetics by fucking their cousins. They would still write bad literary fiction, but it would have wandervogel themes rather than the ‘woe is me! look at how horribly my minority is oppressed by the evil white bigots’ which seems to be most of the output today. They would still have their pseudointellectual conversations where they talk about the insight porn they read recently in vox or whatever, but it would be about the application of Gentile’s theory of Actual Idealism to eugenics policy instead of Ta-Nehisi Coates’ call for reparations. All the sociological mechanisms would still be there, but with different ideological content. I don’t think this is impossible. Ideology seems to be dramatically shaped by historical contingency. If the First World War and all that had followed from it had never happened, there would likely still be some form of progressivism around, but I doubt it would look much like today’s. Early 20th century progressivism seems pretty implicitly WASPy to me. Maybe I’m wrong and the sixties counterculture and cultural marxism were already latent in Teddy Roosevelt’s belief structure, but it’s certainly not obvious. Maybe you think differently and that there is some inherent attraction in Brahmin types towards modern progressivism, so that if aliens abducted a bunch of New York intellectuals, mindwiped them, and dumped them on some random planet, they could come back 100 years later and find them all believing some version of early 21st century progressivism?

Now, the way I read that Putnam paper is that ethnic diversity mostly matters as a proxy for thedish diversity. Ethnic groups and thedes are very closely correlated, but maybe less so over time.

I’m hardly an orthodox WN so I think this can work, but only with high IQ and low time preference people involved. I’m in a milieu with lots of high IQ East Asians and Indians and it works fine. For all progressivism’s faults, it is good at enforcing thedish homogeneity in elite institutions, at least openly. I don’t think it is a stable equilibrium for a society at large, however. Race will always be a salient characteristic and the potential for racial demagoguery is great and under progressivism there is no way to suppress it, at least not for certain ‘oppressed minority’ races.

I’m not sure how exactly one would turn America into a WN state; if we don’t want to be Posadists and pray for alien intervention, the only solutions are to somehow pull off a mass expulsion larger than that of the Germans post-WW2 or to have a chunk of it secede, in which case we’ve already implemented the Yugoslavian option. But how would that play out geopolitically? Remember why Britain thought about supporting the Confederacy…

Personally, I don’t think it’s possible. America is likely doomed to Brazil. By 2050 I would reckon the US will have fallen into Latin America style state-socialism with an increasingly sclerotic and declining empire. I think there is more hope for Europe, because the white population proportion is higher, there is a much more established sense of ethnic identity, and simply because muslims are much more obviously disastrous than latinos. Eastern Europe will probably stay uncucked, despite the Soros and state department NGOs simply because it is becoming increasingly obvious that multiculturalism has been a disastrous failure in the west. Some places like France or Sweden will likely have major civil strife in the future though, so it won’t be all fun and games.

It’d be one thing if we could be Japan, but we can’t — and in any event, Japan can’t weaponize brain drain. (Russia wants to fuck with us? OK, let’s see how well they do that once all their smart people have left it.)

Obviously as an imperial power America will need to have more immigration than otherwise – it obviously needs to provide a safe haven and cushy sinecures teaching political science at some Ivy League college to its agents abroad. That’s fine. Elite immigration really isn’t a problem, nor is it in high numbers, almost by definition. Even if half of China’s upper class want to live in California or Vancouver or wherever, it would cause some problems, but nowhere near existential ones. The problem is when we start importing vast numbers of central american peasants or half the middle east. This simply cannot be framed as a ‘brain drain’. It’s something else entirely.

Why so much concern for USG’s geopolitical interests? USG supports the interests of Massachusetts, Murria is just another foreign client state under the thumb of the evil empire. Murrica’s armies were long destroyed by Massachusetts armies. Murrica has no foreign interests to protect other than the scraps Massachusetts gives it in exchange for being it’s puppet. You’d think that a unipolar power would be doing it’s utmost to promote global security as part of it’s interest in maintaining the status quo. But there are two things that mess that up. 1. USG is insecure geopolitically, it has to ensure that Eurasia never unites so it works hard to keep it fragmented and unstable. 2. USG is intrinsically leftist, promoting eternal universal revolution, anything that threatens leftism is perceived as a threat to USG. “America” is a myth, there is Massachusetts and it’s client nations it has conquered.

Anonymous:
Yes, ideology and structures of conflict are to some extent independent, but that type of conflict is a problem independently of ideology. For one thing, it leads the country into the type of internal fragmentation that John Glubb talks about with the Byzantine Empire, or that Jim talks about with the Samnites. For another, if each thede is at each other thede’s throat, they end up working 25 hours a day and living off gruel laced with rat poison. What are they going to do about it? Protest? They’re at each other’s throat, and they can’t stop being at each other’s throat, and they can’t establish enough trust to work together, ever, until they dissolve or merge, which takes a long time, and which the people making them work 25 hours a day and live off gruel laced with rat poison can easily prevent, not that it takes much help.

Mindwiped New York intellectuals dumped on some random planet — well, it depends on their testosterone levels, tendency toward autism, neuroticism, etc. New York intellectuals don’t strike me as the most functional of people. Maybe it’s because New York, or maybe it’s genetic. Probably both to some degree.

If half of China’s upper class want to live in California — we already have some experience with competent ethnocentric minorities, and holy shit. The Chinese would eat everything. We can brain-drain Russia. We can’t brain-drain China. We’re probably fucked.

Aeroguy:
If you’re the Big Shit of the biggest gang of warlords in Detroit, do you let the other gangs establish security? Of course not — their Big Shits might eventually figure their gang can take yours, and they might be right. Any unipolar power is going to promote insecurity. Any multipolar power… well, empirically, multipolar powers will promote insecurity in others’ domains until the strongest two eat the rest (this is called “decolonization”), and then, if we’re lucky, they’ll fuck up the whole world and one of them will die, and if we’re unlucky, we get global thermonuclear war.

“If you have all the ethnics in America abducted by aliens, then you’ve still got the people who made us not have it the first time to deal with.”

If we have all the Jews abducted by aliens, then we would still have the Jews?

This comes down to the NRx belief that white ethnomasocism is part of the protestant holiness spiral package. I don’t buy it, I don’t see much sign of the specifically white-hating version until after the period of significant Jewish influence. The character of pre-Jewish northern race holiness spirals was more like “we have a sacred obligation to help raise those benighted darkies up to our level”. There are plenty of ways to do that that don’t involve wholesale ethnic replacement. Helping the darkies in their own (considerably lower cost of living) countries is the obvious outlet for that impulse – holy and more efficient!

Humanity needs to assume the role of nature since we have subjugated it to our control. Deport the Leftists and idiots, keep the good, and have our best — kings/aristocrats — in charge because most people are merely “talking monkeys with car keys.”

“Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups. Mountains and lakes are an important part of the boundaries between sharply defined linguistic areas.”